Wikipedia Manipulation, Bill Gates' Farmland Empire, Regenerative Farmers Stay Resilient as War Disrupts Supply Chains
April 10, 2026

Chatbots and AI-generated search summaries – which are rapidly transforming the way people get their information – both use Wikipedia as a key source. Now, we can reveal Wikipedia has been subject to shady, paid-for edits ordered by partners at an elite London PR firm with links to Downing Street. And the clients who benefitted from this “wikilaundering” are some of the world’s richest and most powerful people. The firm in question is Portland Communications. And it has been busted once already for this practice. After the firm was exposed, former employees told us, it simply started hiring middlemen instead. As one of them put it: “No one said, ‘We should stop doing this.’ The question was how we could keep doing it without getting caught.” Portland’s subcontractors have ... obscured mentions of a major terrorist-financing case involving Qatari businessmen; scrubbed evidence that a billion-dollar Gates-funded project failed in its mission; and promoted one side of Libya’s post-Gaddafi government over the other. Often, however, their changes were more subtle: burying bad press under descriptions of a client’s philanthropic work or swapping out critical news references with something more positive. “Small Wikipedia edits punch above their weight,” explained Alberto Fittarelli ... at the University of Toronto’s Citizen Lab. “Small, incremental changes are likely to stick for longer. These kinds of edits make narratives seem credible precisely because they are hardly noticeable. Once that enters the information stream, it becomes really hard to claw it back.”

Powerful institutions are using covert tactics to shape how they are portrayed online. One method involves deploying fake “sockpuppet” accounts to edit Wikipedia pages, enabling interested parties to quietly remove criticism or rewrite how organizations are described on one of the world’s most widely used sources of information. A British investigation found that such tactics were used to remove critical information about AGRA (formerly the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa), a controversial initiative backed by the Gates Foundation that seeks to industrialize African food and farming systems. The analysis identified a “network of 26 ‘sockpuppets’ – multiple accounts orchestrated by a single person – that was eventually banned from Wikipedia under suspicion of paid editing,” [investigator Claire] Wilmot wrote. The findings highlight growing concerns about attempts by governments, corporations and philanthropies to influence widely used online information sources that increasingly feed search engines and artificial intelligence systems that summarize information for the public. “Because it’s widely used by search engines and AI systems, efforts to manipulate it can have far-reaching effects,” Wilmot said. Wilmot warned that the network uncovered in the probe likely represents only a small part of broader efforts by powerful institutions to sanitize their online reputations.

Bill and Melinda Gates ... are deeply invested in American agriculture. The billionaire couple, in less than a decade, have accumulated more than 269,000 acres of farmland across 18 states. The farmland was purchased through a constellation of companies that all link back to the couple’s investment group, Cascade Investments. Their land holdings range from 70,000 acres in north Louisiana, where their farmland grows soybeans, corn, cotton and rice, to 20,000 acres in Nebraska, where farmers grow soybeans. They bought and later sold an additional 6,000 acres in Georgia. In Washington, the Gateses own more than 14,000 acres of farmland that includes potato fields so massive that they are visible from space and some of which are processed into french fries for McDonald’s. These land holdings are separate from their previous investments in companies that support large-scale farming like Monsanto and the tractor manufacturer John Deere. The trend worries young farmers who cannot compete with the likes of Bill Gates when buying land, according to Holly Rippon-Butler, a farmer in upstate New York. “If you’re looking at what this means for farmers on the ground looking to access land, there’s significant competition from nonfarmers, and that really affects young farmers because it means that the price that they’re trying to compete with on the marketplace is driven and determined by people who are not dependent on a farming income,” Rippon-Butler said.

On Jan. 22, “The Alabama Solution” was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature Film. Since 2019, roughly 1,380 incarcerated people have died or been killed while in custody of the state. The documentary — which features footage shot on cell phones by several incarcerated men — zooms out to explore why, despite federal inquiry and a lawsuit brought by the U.S. Justice Department, officers are still able to neglect, harm and kill incarcerated people with seeming impunity. Perhaps less familiar are the lengths Alabama officials go in the film to cover up the disorder and state lawmakers’ callous disregard for incarcerated lives. Prisons are state institutions ... but it’s the only institution that the public and the media have no access to. The men at the center of the film have spent a large share of their incarceration advocating for change from the inside out. They credit their activism to a self-directed course of study organized by prisoners who were active in freedom movements during the civil rights era. In the study groups, the men learned about their constitutional and legal rights. Eventually, they founded the Free Alabama Movement and began rallying family members to push for prison reforms from the outside. In 2016, the federal Justice Department ... began an official investigation. In 2020, the department filed a lawsuit alleging widespread constitutional violations, including rampant violence, homicide and sexual assault. The film explores the impetus for a 2022 work stoppage across all of Alabama’s prisons [which] triggered a class-action lawsuit, alongside several labor unions, accusing the state and corporations of practicing modern-day slavery. The Associated Press traced nearly $200 million dollars in sales of agricultural products and livestock over a period of six years to prison labor across the country. The figure is likely an underestimate. Their investigation uncovered a sprawling shadow workforce of the incarcerated that produces goods and services sold by major corporations such as McDonald’s and Walmart.

When incarcerated people face abuse and mistreatment, they can typically file a formal complaint with jail or prison administrators. In federal prisons, the system for resolving these complaints is known as the “Administrative Remedy Program,” but it’s more commonly referred to as a “grievance system” in state prisons and local jails. Grievance systems are supposed to provide incarcerated people with a way to challenge issues they face behind bars — such as inadequate medical care, harassment by corrections officers, or unsanitary living conditions — and (hopefully) receive some kind of relief. In practice, however, incarcerated people who turn to grievance systems are forced to run a gauntlet of rules and regulations just to be heard, and very rarely succeed. This is especially true when it comes to medical complaints: our analysis of a decade of data from the Data Liberation Project finds that, between 2014 and 2024, a startling 98% of medical grievances were rejected for reasons ranging from the bureaucratic (such as using the wrong size sheet of paper) to the substantive (actually being denied on the merits of the complaint). Less than 1% of medical cases ended in a grant of relief. Conditions are so bad on the inside that since 2000, roughly half of all state prison systems have been court-ordered to improve mental and medical healthcare. In practice ... the grievance system is a black hole, a time-waster, and a deterrent to complaining at all.

Over the course of a week, officials from Massachusetts, North Dakota and Oklahoma toured four German prisons where inmates wore street clothes, maintained their right to vote, cooked their own meals, played in soccer leagues and learned skills like animal husbandry and carpentry. One, called the Open Prison, allowed residents to come and go for work, school and errands. [German] prisons must provide single-occupancy cells at least 10 square meters in size. Many have kitchens where residents may cook their own meals. In the United States, privacy, time outside of cells and family visits are considered risky, and “over-familiarity” between correction officers and inmates is prohibited. German prisons take the opposite approach, known as dynamic security. Correction officers are expected to develop relationships with inmates and know when problems may arise. Yvonne Gade, a correction officer in a ward that houses a small number of prisoners deemed particularly dangerous, shrugged off concerns about their access to a gym with free weights. “It would be a huge potential for violence if you locked them up all the time,” she said. A growing number of American states are looking abroad for ideas that can be adapted to their state prison systems. California, Arizona and Oklahoma’s prison systems have shifted their focus to rehabilitation rather than punishment. In 2022, Pennsylvania opened a unit known as Little Scandinavia, and last year Missouri began a similar transformation project in four prisons. Six other states have established European-style units for younger prisoners. The efforts are still small. Prison conditions are not a priority for voters. U.S. prisons are in crisis, struggling with severe staffing shortages, crumbling facilities and frequent violence. Inmates in U.S. prisons often endure extreme temperatures, vermin-infested food and years, or even decades, in solitary confinement. High-profile cases have brought attention to prolonged shackling, fatal beatings and sexual abuse.

America talks about recidivism as if it were a mystery. It isn’t. It is a predictable outcome of how we run prisons. The U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics has tracked what happens after release for decades. In a 10-year follow-up of people released from state prison, about two-thirds were arrested again within three years, and more than eight in ten within 10 years. A newer national analysis still showed roughly six in ten rearrested within three years. That is not just a series of bad individual choices — rather, it is a system producing a revolving door. Other countries have demonstrated a different way to operate secure prisons — one that changes outcomes without weakening accountability or surrendering public control. Over the past year, I have toured facilities and spoken directly with leaders connected to the only nonprofit prison systems operating at scale internationally. They share one defining feature: rehabilitation is treated as a core operational mission, not a secondary program. The question is not government prisons versus private prisons. It is whether correctional systems are designed to reward safety, stability and successful reentry, or whether they default to capacity management and crisis response. Nonprofit operators differ fundamentally from both traditional government bureaucracy and for-profit incarceration. There are no shareholders, no pressure to pay dividends, no incentives to keep beds full. Success is measured by what happens after release.

Pfizer subsidiaries in multiple countries, including Italy and Russia, were accused by the SEC in 2012 of paying bribes over about a decade to foreign officials to secure regulatory and formulary approvals, boost sales, and increase prescriptions, [an] SEC complaint shows. In China, one subsidiary allegedly created “points programs” that let doctors earn gifts based on prescribing its medications, according to the SEC, while in Croatia, another offered a “bonus program” that reportedly rewarded doctors with cash, international travel, or free products. Pfizer and an indirect subsidiary agreed to pay more than $45 million in separate settlements, without admitting or denying the allegations, the SEC reported. In a parallel action, Pfizer H.C.P., an indirect, wholly-owned healthcare-focused subsidiary, agreed to pay a $15 million penalty to resolve its investigation of FCPA violations after admitting to improper payments to foreign government officials, according to the U.S. Department of Justice. And in Greece, Poland, and Romania, Johnson & Johnson subsidiaries, employees, and agents were accused by regulators of using slush funds, sham contracts, and off-shore companies in the Isle of Man to reward doctors and administrators who ordered or prescribed its products, including surgical implants. The 2011 SEC complaint also accused the company of paying kickbacks in Iraq to obtain business.

A crisis is looming on European farms as the war on Iran threatens fertiliser supplies and sends fuel prices soaring. But some are more shielded than others. Regenerative farms are less reliant on imported synthetic fertilisers than their conventional counterparts while having very similar yields at much lower costs. They improve the soil’s natural fertility with compost, animal manure, rotational grazing, and cover crops, which are planted in the off-season specifically to build healthy soil. They’re less affected when global supply chains are disrupted. It also secures their future by reducing pollution, encouraging biodiversity and even improving public health. Overuse of synthetic nitrogen-based fertilisers is eroding the resilience of farms by polluting the water and air, degrading the soil, and posing risks to human health. On her farm in Greece, third-generation farmer Sheila Darmos generates nitrogen naturally through plants. “We integrate permaculture, syntropic agriculture, and agroforestry practices, and have been shredding tree prunings and leaving them on the soil for over 30 years, building rich fertile soil through decomposing organic matter,” she explains. “We also grow nitrogen-fixing plants on the farm itself, so the system generates its own nitrogen without needing to import any synthetic fertiliser.” Regenerative agriculture is not only about ecological regeneration and resilience: it also improves social and economic resilience to shocks and crises.

Heritage Growers, a native seed farm in Colusa founded by the nonprofit River Partners in 2021, is tackling one of the most fundamental — and least visible — environmental recovery challenges facing the American West: the shortage of locally adapted native seeds needed to restore damaged ecosystems at scale. With more than 200 acres in production, the farm grows what restoration scientists call “source-identified” seed — plant material whose genetic origin can be traced to the specific region where it will ultimately be replanted. That distinction is crucial. “It’s not just any seed,” says Heritage Growers’ general manager Pat Reynolds, a restoration ecologist with more than 30 years of experience. “You want to take material that comes from a specific region, track and make sure those genetics are held forward, produce that seed and put it back into the region. That’s a real important part of it. A poppy that’s grown out in China and came from who knows what is not appropriate for habitat restoration.” Some species require hand harvesting. Others, including some varieties of milkweed critical to pollinators like monarch butterflies, can cost more than $1,000 per pound to produce. “Milkweed actually is very expensive to amplify,” Reynolds explains. “But we need it because if there is no milkweed, there are no monarch butterflies.” Heritage Growers was created five years ago to address this systemic shortage.

Fredy Amador is intimately familiar with the financial struggles people face in the current economy. Northern Illinois’ skyrocketing energy bills make the situation even tougher. Now, Amador has become an evangelist for something that can provide a modest measure of relief: A community solar project, built on a Superfund site too polluted for much else in the city of Waukegan where he lives, about 40 miles north of Chicago. Residents who subscribe to get energy from the solar farm are guaranteed to see savings on their energy bills, under a state program incentivizing solar in low-income areas. The 9.1-megawatt Yeoman Solar Project, which went online last month, can provide energy for about 1,000 households, as well as the Waukegan school district, which owns the land. Such brownfields are attractive locations for solar installations because of ​“existing electrical infrastructure, lower-cost land, and community acceptance,” noted Paul Curran, CleanCapital’s chief development officer. Incentives from the state initiative Illinois Solar for All helped make the project financially viable, even given extra costs incurred from building on a Superfund site. Solar is a good fit for sites that are too polluted for housing or other types of development. Under the terms of the Superfund remediation, residential use is prohibited at the Yeoman Creek site. The company has developed solar on brownfields and landfills in other states, including a new 822-kilowatt site in Maryland.

What if your heating and cooling worked during power outages, and you could count on it becoming more efficient and climate-friendly over time? That's the promise of district heating and cooling or district energy, where entire communities share a heating and cooling system. That allows them to tap into many low-carbon energy sources they couldn't before, more efficiently than any individual building could. As governments look to tackle carbon emissions from buildings — the third largest source in Canada behind the oil and gas industry and transportation — it's an idea that more of them are considering and implementing. Peter Ronson is chief operating officer for Markham District Energy (MDE), a network in a Toronto suburb that heats and cools 14 million square feet in more than 200 buildings, including condo buildings up to 44 storeys tall, a hospital, data centres, hotels and two schools. Some, like the data centres, produce a lot of heat, while others may use lots of hot water. "We got all sorts of stuff on the system," Ronson said. "When [some are] throwing away energy, I can recover and give it to somebody else." That kind of heat-sharing is efficient. Excess heat in the system can also be stored (underground in water or rock, for example) ... and much more cheaply than electricity. All that means converting buildings that burn fossil fuels to district energy can potentially put less strain on the grid than electrifying individual buildings using heat pumps or baseboard heating.

www.peerservice.org - PEERS websites: Spreading inspiration, education, & empowerment
www.momentoflove.org - Every person in the world has a heart
www.personalgrowthcourses.net - Dynamic online courses powerfully expand your horizons
www.WantToKnow.info - Reliable, verifiable information on major cover-ups
www.weboflove.org - Strengthening the Web of Love that interconnects us all